I haven't checked the code in the OP carefully, but if it acts as (and only as) OP wrote, would you have such a strong reaction were it entitled with something like "Modifying scripts en masse?"
Sorry, --, for what seems (obviously, you mileage varies, and you're entitled to that opinion) an excess of outrage. | [reply] |
... would you have such a strong reaction were it entitled with something like "Modifying scripts en masse?"
No I would not, but that is not what it is entitled, and the OP specifically says
The code is obfuscated to make it harder to recognize
But yeah MMMV, but I see no reason to encourage stuff like this to be posted here. If the OP wants to change his post title to something a little more appropriate then I would be much less "outraged" (although truth be told, I was only really "annoyed", the "outrage" is just the "internet amplifier" working to my disadvantage).
| [reply] |
Added PoC to the title to show that this is just a proof of concept. Happy now? The virus in its current form would be terribly impractical anyway.
One does not have to be a cracker or script kiddie to be interested in viruses. A cracker would have added a destructive payload to the virus, and a script kiddie wouldn't write a virus at all, but use someone else's.
| [reply] |